NC
Ja
b
c
a
ARRA
KJPLLPC
I
Cml2Pnmt(Spwp
cf
h0
Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 207–216
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy
j o ur na l ho me page: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / landusepol
otions of justice in payments for ecosystem services: Insights fromhina’s Sloping Land Conversion Program in Yunnan Province
un Hea,b,c,∗,1, Thomas Sikorb,1
College of Economics and Management, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, ChinaSchool of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UKWorld Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF East and Central Asia Program, Heilongtan, Kunming 650204, China
r t i c l e i n f o
rticle history:eceived 29 March 2013eceived in revised form 5 November 2014ccepted 10 November 2014
eywords:usticeayments for ecosystem servicesand-use change
a b s t r a c t
China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) pays millions of farmers to convert cropland in upperwatersheds to tree plantations. It is considered one of the world’s largest payments for ecosystem services(PES) scheme for its reliance on financial incentives. This paper examines the outcomes of the SLCP byway of a case study from the Yangliu watershed in Yunnan province. It focuses on the notions of justiceembedded in state policy and held by villagers and local state officials in order to understand the observedoutcomes in terms of people’s participation in the implementation of the SLCP, land use changes andlivelihood effects. Villagers, local state officials, and state policy share a primary concern about distributivejustice despite significant differences in their specific notions. The shared concern underlies the villagers’
ivelihoodsolicy implementationhina
positive reactions to the SLCP, which among other factors, have led to the intended expansion of treeplantations and a livelihood transition in Yangliu since 2003. The insights from Yangliu suggest the needto consider justice for a fuller understanding of the dynamics and outcomes of the SLCP and other PESschemes worldwide as the notions of justice applied by the involved actors may influence land use andlivelihood dynamics in addition to the other factors considered in research this far.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
ntroduction
In 2000, the Chinese government launched the Sloping Landonversion Program (SLCP), which uses public payments to pro-ote the conversion of cropland on steep slopes to forest and is the
argest and best-funded afforestation program in China (Xu et al.,004; Li, 2004; Bennett, 2008). Also known as the Grain for Greenrogram, it is a landmark in Chinese forest policy because it makesovel use of financial instruments to provide land managers withonetary incentives. As such, it can be considered to represent a
ype of state-led payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemeBennett, 2008; Liu et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2009; Kolinjivadi andunderland, 2012). Its key rationale reflects one of the defining
rinciples of PES: the use of financial incentives to encourage upperatershed land use that generates beneficial consequences for peo-le downstream (Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002; Pagiola et al.,∗ Corresponding author at: College of Economics and Management, Yunnan Agri-ultural University, Kunming 650201, China. Tel.: +86 871 5223014;ax: +86 871 5223377.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. He).1 These authors share the authorship equally.
ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.011264-8377/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2005; Wunder, 2005; Engel et al., 2008). The SLCP is even consid-ered one of the world’s largest PES scheme in terms of the numberof land managers, the area of implementation, and the amount offinance involved (Li, 2004; Xu et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2008).
The SLCP has attracted significant criticism from researchers inChina and abroad. Studies of the program’s formulation and insti-tutional arrangements highlight its top-down implementation andpoint out that this is a significant departure from the principleof voluntariness inherent in PES and may endanger its ambitiousreforestation goals (Xu et al., 2004; Bennett, 2008; Yeh, 2009; Yinand Yin, 2010; He et al., 2014). Other analyses have revealed thatthe SLCP has had negative consequences for local livelihoods: localincomes have declined due to the shift from agriculture to forestry(Uchida et al., 2007; Li et al., 2011), and people living in remoteupper watersheds have few livelihood options after converting totree plantations (Chen et al., 2009; Ma et al., 2009), bringing intoquestion the program’s ability to engender a sustained land usetransition. However, recent research conducted after some revi-sions of the program’s implementation modalities has qualified the
initial insights into local livelihood outcomes, noting that it mayactually generate positive income effects and thereby contribute toreforestation and economic development under certain conditions(Liu et al., 2008; Hogarth et al., 2012; He, 2014).
2 e Poli
eofttjlitmlct
jltltt(itoitpwost2
ntdomiiPjtEtse2
YtoPteOwpodi
pNm
08 J. He, T. Sikor / Land Us
Ideas of justice, we note, have been central to this research,ven though they have remained largely implicit. Conceptionsf procedural justice have informed existing studies of programormulation and implementation, leading to the conclusion thatop-down implementation conflicts with key principles of par-icipation, which may limit the program’s success. Distributiveustice is at the core of analyses of the program’s impacts on localivelihoods, underlying conclusions that the initial payments werensufficient to cover local losses, and that current payments con-ribute to local incomes. An underlying hypothesis is that farmers
ay revert back to cropland if the payments do not cover theirosses, or if they are not consulted in implementation; if paymentsover losses and farmers have a say, the villagers may maintain theree plantations.
In this paper we go a step further to examine the notions ofustice embedded in state policy and those held by villagers andocal state officials (cf. Sikor, 2013). We argue that it is not enougho explain the program’s successes and failures with regard toocal people’s role in its implementation, the level of compensationhey receive, or broader livelihood dynamics. Nor does it sufficeo point out distributive and procedural injustices in the abstractcf. McDermott et al., 2013). Instead, we pay explicit attention tonvolved actors’ notions of justice as a way to explain their reac-ions to the state program and to develop a better understandingf how the SLCP contributes to local livelihoods and reforestationn some places and fails to do so in others. This empirical approacho justice analysis connects villagers’ role in implementation, theayments made under the program, and their effects on livelihoodsith another important factor influencing the program’s success
r failure: the compatibility of the notions of justice embedded intate policy and informing state officials’ practices in implementa-ion with villagers’ ideas about what is just or unjust (cf. Whiteman,009; Martin et al., 2014).
The theoretical objective of our paper is to demonstrate theeed to expand the analysis of PES by considering aspects of jus-ice. The outcomes and nature of PES schemes do not simplyepend on ‘getting the price right’ so that payment levels exceedpportunity costs (Pascual et al., 2010). Nor are they solely deter-ined by the affected people’s participation in their design and
mplementation via certain procedures or the crafting of suitablenstitutional arrangements (Vatn, 2010). Instead, the dynamics ofES on the ground are partially conditioned by the notions ofustice embedded in their design, actualized in their implemen-ation, and held by the involved actors (Sikor et al., 2013, 2014).ven though these notions may be hard to discern in practice,hey are as influential on the outcomes of PES schemes as otherimilarly intangible factors, such as socially constructed knowl-dge about upstream-downstream linkages (Blaikie and Muldavin,004).
We use an in-depth case study from the Yangliu watershed inunnan Province to examine the influence of notions of justice onhe SLCP and on PES schemes more generally. A single case studybviously cannot yield a general explanation for why the SLCP orES schemes succeed or fail, yet we expect this in-depth inves-igation to reveal the significance of justice as an element of thenvironmental and social dynamics effected by these interventions.ur analysis of the SLCP in Yangliu poses two key questions: first,hat are the local outcomes of the SLCP in terms of local people’sarticipation in its implementation, land use changes, and effectsn livelihoods; and second, how do the notions of justice embed-ed in state policy and held by villagers and local state officials
nfluence the observed local outcomes?
The paper has six sections. Following the introduction weresent the empirical approach to justice that informs our research.ext, we introduce the study site and summarize our researchethods. Then we discuss the outcomes of the SLCP at the study
cy 43 (2015) 207–216
site in terms of local people’s role in its implementation, land usechanges, and livelihood dynamics, and relate the observed out-comes to the notions of justice held by villagers and local stateofficials and contained in state policy. The paper concludes witha discussion of implications for understanding the outcomes anddynamics of China’s SLCP and PES schemes worldwide.
Applying an environmental justice lens to PES
The approach to justice taken in this paper follows those ofMartinez-Alier (2002), Schlosberg (2007), Walker (2011), and Sikor(2013), who demonstrate how multiple notions of justice informenvironmental practices and politics in the global South. They donot attempt to derive universal principles of justice in a deduc-tive manner or develop abstract templates for external evaluationsof justice. Instead, they rather seek to understand the notions ofjustice asserted by people, examining how some of these gainsupport and come to be considered legitimate. The authors nei-ther assert the existence of universally shared notions of justicenor seek to weigh the relative validity of competing notionsin an objective, detached manner. Their emphasis is on under-standing the notions of environmental justice that are importantto people and analyzing how they affect what people do andwant.
This empirical approach considers notions of environmentaljustice in the three dimensions of distribution, participation, andrecognition (Sikor, 2013). Distributive justice refers to the abil-ity of different actors to enjoy environmental benefits, avoidenvironmental harm, and take on a fair share of managementresponsibilities. Participation, or procedural justice, considers howdecisions about environmental management are made. It includesattention to people’s roles in decision-making and the rules gov-erning it. Recognition involves acknowledging people’s distinctidentities and histories and is at the core of many indigenouspeoples’ claims. It calls for respect for social and cultural differ-ences such as different visions of the environment and desirableenvironmental management.
The empirical approach to justice does not assume that all claimsof justice are equally legitimate and influential (Walker, 2011;Sikor, 2013). They are not equally legitimate, as only some claimsreceive support in public discourse as being morally right whereasothers encounter opposition; and they are not equally influential,as some claims are always more visible while other voices find itdifficult to get heard. In other words, people assert notions of jus-tice against a background of differences in wealth, power, identity,etc. and rarely operate on a level playing field when making claimsto justice. The notions of environmental justice that are consideredlegitimate and influential reflect the influence of unequal powerrelations and the specific political economic context (Schroederet al., 2008; Zeitoun and McLaughlin, 2013).
The empirical approach can be applied to critically interrogatethe dynamics of PES by comparing the notions of justice underly-ing state policy with those held by villagers and local state officials(cf. Sikor et al., 2014). Such a comparison is congruent with White-man’s analysis of the relations between multinational companiesand indigenous peoples (Whiteman, 2009), the examination of therelations between global and local norms in biodiversity conserva-tion in Martin et al. (2014), and the framework for the analysisof project rationales laid out in McDermott et al. (2013). Eachapplication compares the notions of environmental justice assertedby different actors: companies versus indigenous peoples, globalconservation organizations versus local people, one project versus
another, and in our case, Chinese policymakers and policy imple-menters versus rural villagers. The underlying premise is that thecompatibility between notions or the lack thereof is a central socialdynamic.
J. He, T. Sikor / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 207–216 209
tion o
l2oaio(itupwl2
tncmmto2mMeTjwt
above sea level with 1000–1500 mm of annual rainfall. Its forest isdominated by pine (Pinus yunnanensis, Pinus armandii, Pinus kesiya)and alder (Alnus spp.), which occur naturally and are grown in
Fig. 1. Loca
PES schemes commonly reveal clear concerns about justice, ateast in principle (Sikor et al., 2013; Wunder, 2013; Sikor et al.,014). They tend to promote interventions only if they are ‘sociallyptimal’ in the sense that at least one person will be better offnd nobody will be worse off. This is achieved in PES schemesf beneficiaries (e.g., downstream water users or the state actingn their behalf) compensate those who bear the additional costse.g., upstream farmers). The latter are not worse off in compar-son to their previous position, especially if one compares PES tohe alternative practice of using regulations to outlaw certain landses without compensation. Similarly, the influence of ideas aboutrocedural justice on the design of PES schemes becomes apparenthen one considers the emphasis on voluntariness, as encapsu-
ated by the principle of ‘willing buyer–willing seller’ (Wunder,005).
As we apply this empirical approach to the SLCP, we highlighthe fact that central state policy, local state officials, and villagers’otions of justice emerge within the particular political economiconditions characterizing rural environmental management and,ore broadly, rural governance in China. These conditions are com-only characterized by entrenched power asymmetries between
he state and villagers that accord local cadres significant leveragever political decision-making (O‘Brien and Li, 1999; Oi and Rozelle,000), give regular villagers little say in environmental manage-ent (Xu and Ribot, 2004; Sturgeon, 2009; He, 2014; Blaikie anduldavin, 2014), and reflect the hegemonic influence of particular
nvironmental discourses (Blaikie and Muldavin, 2004; Yeh, 2009).
hus it is important to remember that notions of environmentalustice, particularly those voiced by villagers, are the product ofider political economic dynamics and are likely to evolve in reac-ion to broader political economic changes. Since they are part of
f study site.
the regular politics surrounding environmental management andinter-subjective in nature, they are neither enduring in time nordetermined individually.
With this understanding we feel well equipped to begin theempirical analysis of the SLCP in a small upper watershed of China.Drawing on the framework developed above, our interest is notmerely in local program implementation, land use changes, andlivelihood effects but also extends to the relevant notions of justice.The framework suggests that we can better explain the program’soutcomes if we expand the usual scope of analysis to include atten-tion to justice.
Study site and research methods
Study site
Yangliu is a small upper watershed in Baoshan Prefecture inYunnan Province (see Fig. 1). It belongs administratively to YangliuBai and Yi Township.2 The Yangliu watershed is part of the Salweenriver basin and provides hydrological services to downstream agri-culture and industry. The watershed contains five natural villageswith a population of 1680 in 410 households. The watershed is sit-uated in a typical subtropical zone at an elevation of 1530–2640 m
2 The name of the township indicates that close to two thirds of the townshippopulation are classified as belonging to the Yi and Bai ethnic minority groups. Mostof the remaining people are Han.
2 e Poli
pw
tboyompih
R
Dwbalt
mcdamott2hfp
efvtiga
irDoi
fJf2islt
v
dog
10 J. He, T. Sikor / Land Us
lantations. Topographically, 43 per cent of the total land area of theatershed has a slope of 25◦ or more (Weyerhaeuser et al., 2005).
Yangliu’s people farmed most of the land until the implementa-ion of the SLCP in 2002. The farmers cultivated corn, buckwheat,arley, and rice at the lower and middle elevations, converting mostf the sloping land to thousands of tiny terraces over time. Theields they achieved on the land were low yet important as sourcesf subsistence. In 2000 Baoshan was classified as one of China’sost underdeveloped regions. Yangliu’s villagers were considered
oor even by Chinese standards, because their average per capitancome did not exceed US$100 a year (He, 2012). However, Yangliuas since achieved a dramatic turnaround, as we discuss below.
esearch methods
Intensive fieldwork was carried out from August 2010 toecember 2011 as part of the first author’s PhD research. He hadorked in Yangliu since 2005 on various agroforestry projects,
uilding strong personal relations of mutual trust with local peoplend forest officials. He stayed in the villages during the fieldworkiving with various families, which provided numerous opportuni-ies for informal conversations and direct observations.
Data collection focused on four analytical categories of pri-ary interest: local people’s role in SLCP implementation, land use
hange, livelihood dynamics, and notions of justice.3 The collectedata were analyzed by comparison over time (land use 2002–2011nd livelihoods 2001–2010), descriptive analysis of SLCP imple-entation, and causal networks connecting notions of justice to
bserved outcomes (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The analysis ofhis paper was conducted at the watershed scale despite the facthat the first author has analyzed the livelihood data further (He,012). Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the analysis presentedere operates at the aggregate level, missing out on important dif-
erences between individual villagers of different gender, wealth,ower, etc.
Data on the implementation of the SLCP since 2002 were gath-red via a review of government documents and statistics collectedrom Yangliu Township and village records. Additionally, we inter-iewed government officials from two government bodies at theownship and prefectural levels and fifteen selected villagers as keynformants about the concrete steps taken to implement the pro-ram, villagers’ involvement in its implementation, and their ownssessments of the implementation.
The land use changes are analyzed by way of remote imagerynterpretation. The interpretation utilizes Landsat ETM+ (30 mesolution, 13 January 2002) and Rapid Eye (5 m resolution, 24ecember 2010) images to describe land use before and after thenset of the SLCP, selecting images that minimize cloud cover andmprove visual interpretation.
The definition of natural vegetation and classification conceptsollows the Land Cover Classification System (Di Gregorio andansen, 2000) to classify land use into six categories that distinguishorest cover from other types of land use when tree coverage is over0%. To generate comparable land-use data across time, the satellite
mages were manually interpreted using a supervised classificationystem. The spatial data analysis was performed in ArcGIS by over-aying different attributes to understand the ecological outcome of
he SLCP in terms of land use change.Livelihood effects were investigated by way of a household sur-ey followed by in-depth interviews of a sub-sample of households.
3 We distinguished between the three dimensions of justice elaborated above –istribution, participation and recognition. In this paper, we report our insights onlyn distributive and procedural aspects since our questions on recognition did notenerate much traction with villagers.
cy 43 (2015) 207–216
The questionnaire survey was carried out in all five villages, usinga random approach to sample approximately 10 per cent of thepopulation of each. To ensure that the survey would be both sta-tistically meaningful and affordable, a total of 43 households weresampled. Interviews were conducted with household heads: typ-ically their senior male member. The survey data were analyzedquantitatively using SPSS 9.0. We followed up the survey in five ofthe forty-three households with an in-depth interview on house-hold decision-making about land use, the allocation of labor, andmigration.
Information about applicable notions of justice originated fromthree sources. First, we reviewed the text of the SLCP and associatedpolicy statements for explicit and implicit statements on justice.Second, we conducted individual interviews and a group interviewwith three township leaders and four forest officials to elicit theirevaluations of what they considered just or unjust about the design,implementation, and outcomes of the SLCP. Third, we interviewedfifteen key informants – including village leaders and regular vil-lagers, women and men, elders and young people – about theirperceptions of the kinds of practices and decisions they consideredjust or unjust (the Chinese term that the informants commonlyused was gongping ( ), which literally translates as ‘fairness’). Wealso organized three group interviews with village leaders, elders,and women, each consisting of four or five people, on their notionsof justice in relation to land use.
It is important to consider the insights we gained on notionsof justice in the context of power relations and researcher-subjectdynamics in rural China. Notions of justice are inter-subjective andreflect the context in which they are voiced. This offers an explana-tion of why our questions about justice received relatively uniformresponses although we met our informants at their homes in theabsence of government officials, assured them of confidentiality,and encouraged them to speak freely, and even though we madesure to speak to various kinds of villagers. The notions of justicethat they shared with us may or may not reflect the notions theyhold in private, especially if one considers the possibility that socialvariation along wealth, ethnicity, power and gender lines may dif-ferentiate people’s views of justice. Nevertheless, the first author’sdeep familiarity with the villages make us relatively confident thatthe notions of justice shared with us reflect the notions that vil-lagers would assert in negotiations among each other and withgovernment officials with regard to land use.
The outcomes of the SLCP in Yangliu
This section analyzes the outcomes of the SLCP in Yangliu interms of villagers’ role in the implementation of SLCP, changes inland use, and livelihood trends.
SLCP implementation in Yangliu
The township government began to implement the SLCP in Yan-gliu watershed in 2003 after higher-level government agenciesselected the township and allocated a budget for its implemen-tation. Yangliu became eligible for the SLCP because it met theprogram’s key criteria: almost half of its land is on a slope of 25◦
or more and the villages in the watershed were classified as poor.
Additionally, the township officials appreciated that the watershedis conveniently located along the road connecting the townshipcenter with the central town of Baoshan Prefecture4. The first round4 Local officials in some places have implemented the SLCP on land close to a roadto ‘showcase’ their work (Bennett, 2008), whereas officials in other places havetargeted plots far from road since they are less attractive for cultivation (Xu et al.,2004).
e Polic
opph1t(
egcapTeettsfr
ecttpcgtmltutt
fhptmtsttatwfh
ctfffits
m
cs
J. He, T. Sikor / Land Us
f implementation took place in 2003 and involved 229 householdslanting pear (Pyrus pyrifolia) trees on 49 ha of cropland. Each of thearticipating households was compensated with 2250 kg of rice pera of converted cropland. In a second round of planting in 2005,06 households established 38 ha of walnut (Juglans sigillata) plan-ations in return for financial compensation of 3150 Chinese yuanCNY) per ha.5
The implementation of the first round of planting in 2003 wasntirely top-down. The township government delineated the eli-ible area on a map in accordance with the national topographicriteria and then encouraged farmers with fields in the selectedrea to sign up for tree plantations. Township officials also selectedear as the species to be planted without consulting farmers.hey did not take into consideration the fact that the local farm-rs lacked knowledge of this exotic species, or that they wouldncounter problems accessing markets due to their remote loca-ion (He, 2012). A survey conducted in 2004 by the village head andownship forest station revealed that only about half of all the treeeedlings planted in the previous year had survived. The countyorest bureau and township government had to provide anotheround of free seedlings to replace those that had died.
The top-down implementation ignored local people’s knowl-dge and experience of agroforestry practices, leading to openonflict between forest officials and villagers. Yangliu’s farmersraditionally practice intercropping, combining trees with agricul-ural crops on a single field. The forest officials did not allow thisractice in line with Article 29 of the SLCP decree, which categori-ally prohibits any form of intercropping with annual crops due toovernment fears that the agricultural crops would crowd out theree seedlings and, more generally, undermine farmers’ commit-
ent to shifting from crop cultivation to tree plantations. When theocal forest officials enforced this regulation in Yangliu watershedhey came into direct conflict with the local farmers, who did notnderstand why the government had outlawed intercropping evenhough the crops provided shade and other forms of protection forhe young tree seedlings.6
As the interviewees stated, in 2003 most of the farmers selectedor the SLCP continued to grow corn since only 300 pear treesad been planted per ha, leaving plenty of space for intercrop-ing. They considered that intercropping would benefit both therees’ growth and annual crop yield. When the township govern-
ent saw the intercropping in practice in May 2003 a village taskeam was formed of village committee members who took respon-ibility for removing any crops on land under the SLCP. They toldhe villagers that if they did not remove the intercropped cornhe entire village would forfeit its compensation from the SLCP,s clearly stated in the policy. Although the villagers complained tohe township government, their request for permission to continueith annual intercropping was denied. Around July 2003 they were
orced to remove almost-mature intercropped corn in which theyad invested up to 1250 CNY per ha for seeds and fertilizer.
The mode of implementation employed by the township offi-ials in the second round in 2005 was little different to that used forhe first. Again, it was the officials who selected a single tree speciesor implementation. They also decided on the area on which localarmers were required to establish plantations in order to receive
nancial support. This time they met with a more favorable reac-ion from the farmers. Because they had selected walnut as thepecies to be propagated and the farmers knew that this species5 The central government replaced the in-kind compensation with financial pay-ents in 2004, paying farmers CNY 1.4 per kg of grain.6 Scientific research indicates that intercropping supports nutrient cycles that
omplement the needs of both trees and crops, leading to better ecological andocioeconomic returns from tree plantations (He et al., 2009).
y 43 (2015) 207–216 211
would yield good returns, the officials encountered no difficultiesin signing farmers up for participation. In fact some farmers proac-tively prepared their land for planting trees and then approachedthe township government for support from the SLCP.
In sum, the implementation of the SLCP in Yangliu took a top-down approach, confining local decision-making to state officials.Officials identified the land targeted, selected the tree speciesand defined the permitted management practices. This matchesobservations elsewhere in China, where the implementation of theSLCP has followed a similar top-down approach (Xu et al., 2004;Weyerhaeuser et al., 2005; Bennett, 2008; Yeh, 2009; Yin and Yin,2010; He, 2014).
Land use changes from 2002 to 2011
Land use in Yangliu watershed changed drastically between2002 and 2011 (see Table 1). In 2002, the year before the imple-mentation of the SLCP began, agricultural fields covered 2075 ha,nearly half of the upper watershed. Nine years later, agriculturalland had shrunk to 1597 ha or 38 per cent of the total land area,and tree cover had increased by 600 ha. Trees had replaced agricul-ture on nearly 500 ha, a ninth of the entire watershed area, in onlynine years.
The massive shift from agriculture to trees raises the question ofhow far the SLCP contributed to this change in land use. After all, inthe tree-planting campaigns of 2003 and 2005 the SLCP was imple-mented on only 87 ha. Comparison of land use changes between2002 and 2011 and interviews with farmers suggest that the con-version of agricultural fields to tree plantations under the SLCPmatched the broader dynamics of land use, particularly since 2005.In addition, the implementation of the SLCP and its promotion ofwalnut trees served as a trigger for wider efforts by local farmersto diversify land use away from the subsistence-oriented produc-tion of corn, buckwheat, barley, and rice of the past. Many plantedwalnut trees on their own initiative as they saw the trees plantedunder the SLCP develop well and the market price for walnuts rise.Some villagers did not convert agricultural fields into tree planta-tions, but our survey indicates that those accounted for 9% of allhouseholds only. Further increases in tree cover were the result ofchanges in forest use such as a significant reduction in the collectionof firewood (He, 2012).7
We conclude that implementation of the SLCP was in line withand contributed to broader land use changes from agriculturalcrops to trees. It did not impose unwanted land use changes onmost local people, as observed in other areas (Xu et al., 2006; Liuet al., 2008). To understand the socioeconomic dynamics drivingland use changes we proceed to analyze livelihood dynamics inYangliu.
Livelihood changes from 2002 to 2011
Like land use, local livelihoods changed dramatically between2001 and 2010. Above all, local incomes increased four-fold over aperiod of only nine years, from 594 CNY per capita in 2001 to 2340 in2010. Many villagers diversified their sources of income away fromagriculture. In 2010, non-farm sources assumed a significant role inthe villages’ economies whereas they had contributed to household
income only marginally in 2001. The payments delivered underthe SLCP contributed to the increase in local incomes in Yangliu,even though their significance declined again by 2010: the average7 He (2012) and the household survey conducted under this research show thatthe amount of firewood collected has shrunk by 90% over the past decade due to theintroduction of biogas and improved cook stoves and the villages’ connection to thenational electricity grid.
212 J. He, T. Sikor / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 207–216
Table 1Land-use changes in Yangliu watershed.
Land use 2002 2011 2002–2011a
ha % ha % ha %
Forest 1286.19 30.37 1890.21 44.62 604.02 14.25Agriculture land 2074.68 48.99 1597.17 37.72 −477.51 −11.27Settlement 19.26 0.45 59.85 1.41 40.59 0.96Shrub 475.02 11.22 348.91 8.24 −126.11 −2.98
2
namic
ap2
toifSlsasraecusw5ifwydte
buiptttvlevhob
U
S
tr
the Yangtze basin, the central government granted its inhabitantsa higher level of compensation at 2250 versus the 1500 kg of grain
Grass 345.6 8.16
Water body 34.2 0.81
a For the analysis of the land use and cover change, the calculation of land use dy
nnual payment per capita of CNY 163 amounted to less than 8er cent of the average income in 2010 compared to 27 per cent in001.
The shift from crop cultivation to tree plantations promoted byhe SLCP suited the broader livelihood dynamics and the majorityf villagers in Yangliu well. China’s economic growth and increas-ng off-farm opportunities caused many villagers to move awayrom livelihood strategies centering on on-farm production. TheLCP payments were an important contribution to changes in localivelihoods because they helped these village households to diver-ify into non-farm activities, facilitated by Yangliu’s favorable roadccess. They provided critical insurance in the initial years of diver-ification, when migrating household members faced significantisks pursuing non-farm opportunities in far-away urban centersnd others started non-farm businesses or took up non-agriculturalmployment in surrounding towns. The change from annual agri-ulture to forestry also freed up farm labor, allowing people to takep non-farm activities outside the village. It did not suit those whoought to make a living from agriculture in the villages, but thoseere in the minority.8 According to the household survey, in 2010
6 per cent of households in Yangliu watershed included peoplenvolved in non-farm jobs on a part-time or full-time basis, a three-old increase over 2002. On average, 1.2 people in every householdere engaged in non-farm work for an average of 7.2 months a
ear. This general match between the SLCP and broader livelihoodynamics sets Yangliu apart from other places where implementa-ion has had an overall negative effect on local livelihoods (Uchidat al., 2007; Chen et al., 2009; Ma et al., 2009; Li et al., 2011).
We conclude our analysis of the outcomes of the SLCP in Yangliuy noting the program’s congruence with broader changes in landse and livelihoods. Even though local people did not have a mean-
ngful role in the implementation of the SLCP, many welcomed therogram for its contribution to their shift away from annual agricul-ure toward livelihood diversification. The conversion of croplando tree plantations promoted by the SLCP thus fitted in well withhe broader land use changes due to the flow of labor out of theillages and the consequent need for less labor-intensive forms ofand use. However, we argue that these observations do not fullyxplain the outcomes of the SLCP in Yangliu. To fully understand theillagers’ reactions to the SLCP it is necessary to look beyond liveli-oods and tree species and consider the influence of the notionsf justice embedded in state policy and held by villagers, as we doelow.
nderlying notions of justice
This section examines the notions of justice embedded in theLCP policy and held by villagers and local state officials. Attention
8 For example, we met a poor household that retained a primary focus on cultiva-ion. We also interviewed a well-off man who had had enough of non-farm work andeturned to the village because he appreciated the independence of family farming.
91.19 6.88 −54.41 −1.2847.62 1.12 13.42 0.31
s is informed by Xu et al. (2005).
to these notions, we surmise, explains why the villagers did notopt out of the program despite its top-down implementation, andwhy state policy, officials, and villagers prioritized the provisionof material benefits over everything else as the key feature of theSLCP. We begin with a look at the notions of justice embedded instate policy and held by local state officials before turning to thoseof the villagers and identifying overlaps in the two as key factorsexplaining the environmental and socioeconomic outcomes of theSLCP in Yangliu.
Notions of justice embedded in state policy and held by local stateofficials
The text of the SLCP and associated policy statements by centralgovernment leaders display a focus on distributive justice in theiracknowledgment of the need to compensate farmers in affectedupper watersheds. Even though the assumption of a direct linkbetween upstream land use practices, on the one hand, and ero-sion and downstream flooding, on the other, is problematic (Blaikieand Muldavin, 2004), the SLCP highlights the trade-off betweenupstream and downstream watershed dynamics and focuses onthe implementation of ecological restoration activities at the costof upstream farmers’ land use options (SFA, 2002). It addresses thelivelihood losses incurred through land conversion from crop culti-vation to tree plantations in the short term and makes public fundsavailable to compensate upstream farmers for their losses. As theformer Premier Zhu Rongji stated in a speech delivered on 27thJuly 2000: ‘We should not let farmers implement the SLCP and eco-logical restoration on empty stomachs.’ This central premise runsthrough the policy texts prepared by the central agencies involved,including the Development and Planning Commission, the NationalGrain Bureau,9 the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry ofFinance.
The SLCP makes significant resources available to compensateupstream farmers for the losses they incur in the process of conver-sion. During the formulation of the policy the central governmentalso put significant effort into making the compensation fair, i.e.,providing sufficient support to cover losses while avoiding over-compensation. For example, it sought to even out some geographicdifferences by differentiating compensation levels paid to farm-ers in the two primary river basins of the Yangtze and YellowRiver. Since upland agriculture is considered more productive in
per ha provided in the Yellow River basin (Article 6, SFA, 2002).10
9 Since the subsidy for grain was replaced by cash in 2004, the Grain Bureau is nolonger involved.
10 The uniform rates applied across China’s two largest watersheds, of course,ignore the highly varied environmental, social and political histories and differ-ences in topography and soils that characterize actual conditions on the ground(Weyerhaeuser et al., 2005; Bennett, 2008; Yin and Yin, 2010; He, 2012).
e Polic
ftsTfiees((prtbdc
tlfospt4
cgibfaceaatbretssrd
trtgfpTge
gFttaMo
J. He, T. Sikor / Land Us
Another example of the central government’s effort to provideair compensation is Article 9 of the SLCP decree, which respondso the difference in economic returns from different kinds of treepecies by distinguishing between ‘ecological’ and ‘economic’ trees.he former refers to the tree species commonly used to establishorest stands for the purpose of maintaining and improving ecolog-cal functions and services such as biodiversity conservation, soilrosion control, etc. These species are considered to produce lowerconomic returns than so-called economic trees, which includepecies planted for commercially valuable non-timber productse.g., fruits, edible oils, nuts, and fodder) and industrial materialse.g., rubber). SLCP payments are granted for eight years to farmerslanting ecological trees, whereas those planting economic treeseceive support for only five years. Just as pointed out above, whilehis simple distinction is in no way able to capture the differencesetween the economic returns and environmental effects of theifferent tree species, it reflects an attempt to provide adequateompensation via a highly centralized bureaucracy.
The extension of the SLCP in 2007 resonates with this cen-ral concern with distributive matters. The central governmentaunched a policy to reinforce and consolidate the program. Theollow-up policy extended the compensation period before theriginal payments ran out in order to avoid land reconversion,pecifying that farmers in affected areas would be eligible for aayment extension of another five or eight years, depending on theree species planted, at half the earlier rate (State Council, Article, 2007).
The distributive concerns embedded in the SLCP even go beyondompensation, as the policy envisions the SLCP to serve as a trig-er for broader rural development and economic restructuringn underdeveloped regions of western China. In contrast to theooming coastal areas in the east, the west continues to sufferrom sluggish economic growth due to low agricultural returnsnd lack of industrialization (Li and Wei, 2010). The State Coun-il stated in 2002 that the SLCP should serve not only to promotecological restoration but also to contribute to poverty reductionnd rural development (State Council, 2002). The SLCP is part of
broader national strategy for developing the west, which seekso bring investment to Western China and close the widening gapetween the east and the west (SFA, 2002). This commitment toural development finds concrete expression in the geographicalxpansion of the SLCP from 17 to 25 provinces in 2002 to includehe upper watersheds of basins flowing into neighboring countries,uch as the Salween and the Mekong. The inclusion of such water-heds could not be justified under the original rationale to promoteeforestation in upper watersheds and generate benefits for thoseownstream in China.11
Provincial and local governments displayed the same focus onhe distributive dimension of justice when they formulated localegulations and implemented the policy on the ground. In addi-ion to the central policy of compensation, the Yunnan provincialovernment decided to exempt farmers participating in the SLCProm tax payments with the stated goal of encouraging partici-ation in the program and supporting livelihood improvements.
he local officials that we interviewed perceived SLCP as a pro-ram that allows rural people to share the benefits of China’sconomic growth to the extent that they prioritized the economic11 This observation does not imply that we identify poverty alleviation as the sin-ular cause behind the implementation of the SLCP or its expansion to 25 provinces.or example, we consider it very useful to consider the central government’s effortso develop the west as ‘processes of internal territorialization to rework the rela-ionship between different categories of citizens and the state’ (Yeh, 2009), or as anttempt to enhance state control to border and ethnic minority areas (Blaikie anduldavin, 2004). In this paper we are just documenting the particular conceptions
f justice embedded in the SLCP.
y 43 (2015) 207–216 213
development of poor villagers over environmental outcomes. Thusthere was a clear overlap in the primary concern with distribu-tive justice in the policy texts formulated by central state officialsand their implementation by local officials, although the specificexpressions of the shared distributive concern varied to someextent.
In addition to these distributive issues, the SLCP includesattention to procedural justice, in particular the provision that par-ticipation in the program should be voluntary. It seeks to bringabout a radical departure from the command-and-control approachof the past by involving farmers as voluntary active agents in theimplementation of the project (Bennett, 2008; Weyerhaeuser et al.,2005). Article 5 in the SLCP text states that voluntary participationis a core principle of SLCP implementation to ensure that ‘thosewho convert and plant trees will also be the ones managing andeventually benefiting from the SLCP’. The emphasis on voluntari-ness and villagers’ active participation in local implementation isalso evident in the 2000 guidelines on SLCP implementation andin a speech by the former Premier Zhu Rongji on 7th July 2000, inwhich he clearly stated that no farmer should be forced to convertland.
However, the principle of voluntary participation was lost inthe process of local implementation, as discussed in section “SLCPimplementation in Yangliu”. Local government officials adopted atop-down approach to completing their mission and meeting theirtargets, which had been defined at higher levels. Officials identifiedthe targeted villages and areas, selected the tree species to be prop-agated, and defined the permitted management practices withoutconsulting farmers.
In sum, the central government and local officials displayed anoverarching concern with distributive justice, as encapsulated inthe provision that all participating farmers should receive fair com-pensation for losses incurred. This focus on fair compensation iscomplemented by attention to wider distributive concerns con-nected to poverty reduction and economic development in remoteareas, particularly with local state officials. In contrast, the atten-tion to procedural issues in the policy text, i.e., the idea of villagers’voluntary participation in the program, has been lost in the imple-mentation.
Villagers’ notions of justice
Villagers revealed a focus on distributive matters, in particularwith the goal of overcoming poverty and improving their eco-nomic status. The primary concern for most of them was withmaking the transition from subsistence-oriented on-farm produc-tion to new livelihoods and better living standards, participating inChina’s economic growth, and gaining access to modern ameni-ties. They evaluated the contracts offered by the SLCP to planttrees for payment from this perspective. To these villagers the SLCPprovided an opportunity for a smooth transition from on-farm tonon-farm activities. Most of the villagers that we interviewed indepth individually or met in groups expressed a desire to reducetheir involvement in crop cultivation and diversify their livelihoods.The SLCP made a welcome contribution to this by offering tem-porary support during the critical initial transition period in theform of payments, access to commercially valuable tree species,and freeing up labor on the farm. They hoped that the walnut treeswould eventually become a significant source of on-farm incomethat would reduce their poverty and improve their standard of liv-ing. Food security, which may have been a real concern in some
households, was no longer a primary problem for most.The village head captured this view when he told us:
We are now less involved in land of low productivity [which is]agriculture as we knew it, cultivating a large area for a small
2 e Poli
tcrhortTuneea
tttttniTafitgtni
titttupe
P
pteuilcfi
notions of justice held by villagers and local state officials andembedded in state policy may have contributed to the economicand environmental outcomes of the SLCP. Due to the shared
14 J. He, T. Sikor / Land Us
return. Many of us are now cultivating tobacco and coffee. Thisrequires less land and yields higher economic returns. Also, lotsof young people have migrated to cities for non-farm jobs thatgenerate more money than agriculture . . . More than 40 percent of all households have started to buy [rather than grow]rice for domestic consumption. Walnut plantations and otherforest investments will bring us long-term returns in the future[12 September, 2011, Yangliu].
Villagers felt entitled to support from the SLCP on the grounds ofheir position at the margins of China’s economy and society. Theyonsidered the focus of the SLCP on remote and poor mountainousegions fully justified by the low productivity of agriculture andigh poverty levels in such regions. For example, the participantsf a group interview noted that they belonged to one of the poo-est areas in Baoshan Prefecture and had benefited very little fromhe economic growth that they were witnessing all around them.he prefecture’s capital, they pointed out, had gained significantlynder China’s economic boom and socioeconomic development;ow it was their turn to benefit, and to do so they required gov-rnment investment in programs such as the SLCP. A village elderxpressed this sentiment about the neglect of mountainous peoplend areas:
. . .Even through forest is a long-term investment, it can providegreater benefits than agriculture in mountainous areas. SLCPcan provide a very good alternative to agricultural production,helping us to make better use of our mountain resources foreconomic development [8 July 2011, Yangliu].
Besides these distributive concerns, villagers also professedheir adherence to principles of procedural justice. Just as set out inhe policy, they expected to participate in the SLCP only on a volun-ary basis. In addition, our informants told us, they would have likedo assume an active role in the implementation of the SLCP beyondhe mere act of planting trees and having a choice as to whether orot to participate in the scheme. They wanted to be involved in the
dentification of eligible land, tree species selection, and so forth.hey pointed to the fact that their experience would be a valuablesset in the effective implementation of the program, as exempli-ed by the conflict over intercropping. Their long experience of howhe intercropping of agricultural crops could be beneficial to treerowth could help the SLCP to attain its intended outcomes. Thus,hey claimed an active role in policy implementation, whereasobody we met even considered demanding villagers’ participation
n policy formulation.Thus the villagers primarily voiced a strong concern with dis-
ributive justice. The SLCP was an opportunity for their economicmprovement and they felt to support by the state on the basis ofheir position at the margins of China’s economy and society. Addi-ionally they revealed attention to procedural justice, primarily inhe form of their expectation to participate in the SLCP on a vol-ntary basis but also through their suggestions that their activearticipation in local implementation would generate beneficialffects for the SLCP’s success in Yangliu.
artial overlap in the notions of justice
A comparison between the notions of justice embedded in stateolicy, asserted by local state officials, and held by villagers showshat these differed from one another. The overarching principlenshrined in the SLCP and asserted by local state officials was thatpstream farmers receive compensation for the financial losses
ncurred in the conversion of cropland to forest. In contrast, vil-agers considered to possess a moral right to state support so theyould make the transition from subsistence agriculture to diversi-ed livelihoods and benefit from China’s rapid economic growth,
cy 43 (2015) 207–216
with some support from local state officials. The implied distribu-tive axes were different: upstream versus downstream in statepolicy, and rich versus poor citizens for villagers.
The villagers not only asserted a different interpretation of dis-tributive justice but also rejected the notion of fair compensationthat is central to the policy. Half of all the households sampled inour survey reported that the SLCP’s compensation was too low tomake up for losses incurred by the conversion from cropland to treeplantations, and more than four out of ten felt that the duration ofthe payments was too short.12 Thus, they did not consider it legit-imate to base financial transfers on calculations of losses incurredin the conversion of particular plots from agriculture to tree plan-tations. To them, the distributive issue was about their ability toimprove their livelihoods and catch up with economic developmentwitnessed in the rest of China.
Despite these differences, their notions of justice, the ones heldby local officials, and those embedded in state policy partially over-lapped in their shared concern with distributive issues. For thevillagers, the issue of justice primarily boiled down to the deliveryof financial support to enable their livelihood transition. Financialpayments were also at the core of the policy, albeit for different rea-sons. Due to this partial overlap in notions of justice, we suggest,the SLCP contributed to the intended reforestation and, for mostvillagers, livelihood improvements in Yangliu.
State policy intentions, policy implementation, and villagerswere far apart with regard to the procedural dimensions of jus-tice. Even though the villagers expected to participate actively inthe implementation and central policy guidelines granted them theright to opt out, the SLCP was implemented from the top downin Yangliu. Local officials selected the tree species to be plantedand decided on the land zoning and allowable land managementpractices, excluding any meaningful possibility for the villagers toinfluence implementation. Just as observed elsewhere in China (Xuet al., 2004; Weyerhaeuser et al., 2005; Bennett, 2008; Yeh, 2009;Yin and Yin, 2010; He, 2014), local officials adopted the top-downapproach of the past to implement the SLCP even though they nowallowed villagers to opt out. A few courageous villagers, we weretold, defied the orders given with the first round of tree plantingon the grounds of distributive and procedural concerns, but even-tually had to cave in to local officials’ pressure. Yet when the treeplanting shifted from the unpopular pear trees to walnut trees in2005, villagers readily joined the planting even though they stillnoted their exclusion from decision-making.
The shared overarching concern with distributive justice, wesuggest, came to outweigh discrepancies in the participatorydimension of justice. The lack of procedural justice did not pre-vent the SLCP from contributing to the intended reforestation andlivelihood improvements in Yangliu because the farmers’ primaryconcern with distributive justice overlapped sufficiently with theSLCP. Close to nine out of ten survey respondents stated that theywere pleased to participate in the program. This satisfaction, weconclude, arose from the primary concern with distributive mattersshared by villagers, state policy, and local state officials.
Conclusion
The insights from Yangliu show that a partial overlap in the
12 The villagers’ evaluation finds support in our household survey. The surveydata indicate that the value of average grain yields before the land conversion washigher than the compensation paid under the SLCP (equivalent to 4365 versus 3150CNY/ha).
e Polic
ctitvfsafnf
istasiwiS(bontUomt2tt
ap“stItis(tdicc2smtoe
stt2nrtWaa
J. He, T. Sikor / Land Us
oncern with distributive justice, villagers reacted positively tohe incentives offered by the SLCP to entice them to participaten the tree plantation campaign. State policy considered it justo compensate upstream farmers for losses incurred in the con-ersion from cropland to tree plantations, a conversion pursuedor its expected effects downstream. The villagers felt entitled totate support in order to make the transition from subsistencegriculture to diversified livelihoods so that they too could benefitrom China’s rapid economic growth. Although the underlyingotions were different, they overlapped sufficiently in Yangliu to
acilitate reforestation and rising incomes.These insights highlight the need to consider notions of justice
n analyses of the SLCP and other similar programs across Chinauch as the Compensation for Ecological Forest Program. Attentiono the compatibility of notions of justice embedded in state policynd held by villagers and local state officials may increase under-tanding of why such programs fail in some places and succeedn others. Their successes may in part be due to villagers agreeing
ith the compensation principle enshrined in the state policy, shar-ng the policy’s emphasis on distributive matters (Kolinjivadi andunderland, 2012) or consenting to the implementation approachBennett et al., 2011). Failures may be caused, at least in part,ecause villagers consider interventions wrong according to theirwn notions of distributive justice, or because they adhere tootions of procedural justice that state policy or local implementa-ion do not meet (Ho, 2003; Xu et al., 2004; Jiang, 2006; Yeh, 2009;thes et al., 2010; He, 2014). Villagers’ notions of justice are partf the local political economies that shape the dynamics of imple-entation, land use, and livelihoods as well as the outcomes of
he SLCP and other programs (cf. Blaikie and Muldavin, 2004; Yeh,009). They are not exogenous in any sense, but are conditioned byhe historical relations between villagers and the state and reflecthe influence of locally specific contexts.
These insights from China have wider relevance in the designnd implementation of PES schemes worldwide. Such schemes dis-lay a primary concern with distributive justice, as noted in sectionApplying an environmental justice lens to PES”; yet our insightsuggest that getting PES schemes to work is not simply about iden-ifying the right level of payment or picking a profitable tree species.n addition, the designers and implementers of such schemes needo consider the notions of distributive justice held by the actorsnvolved, just as they have been encouraged to consider how PESchemes fit the existing values that people attribute to ecosystemsVatn, 2010; Shapiro-Garza, 2013). Similarly, PES proponents needo consider local people’s notions of justice along the other twoimensions. Unlike in our case study, the actors involved may prior-
tize issues of participation over distributive matters, which in turnhallenges PES designers and implementers to attend to the politi-al processes of decision-making (e.g., van Noordwijk and Leimona,010; Bosselmann and Lund, 2013). Or, as pointed out in othertudies, the involved parties may primarily view PES schemes asatters of recognition, calling upon PES protagonists to consider
he involved actors’ group identities, shared histories, and visionsf environmental management (e.g., Muradian et al., 2010; Pascualt al., 2010).
Our insights also have a direct bearing on the broader under-tanding of PES. In the most general sense, they suggest the needo assess the justice implications of PES schemes and examineheir effects on the dynamics of PES on the ground (Sikor et al.,013). Once researchers recognize the significance of actors’ ownotions of justice they will be in a better position to explain people’seactions to the introduction of PES schemes such as the resis-
ance that some have encountered in Latin America (Blackman andoodward, 2010) and conflicts over the distribution of paymentsnd terms of participation (Corbera et al., 2007). Furthermore, suchssessments would need to contextualize the applicable notions
y 43 (2015) 207–216 215
of justice in the wider political and economic context in whichPES takes place in order to understand how notions develop, areasserted, and find traction in public discourse. This approach mayalso allow researchers to critically interrogate how certain notionsget to be enshrined in policy and attain dominant or even hege-monic status, such as ideas that some people should pay otherpeople for particular environmental practices.
Acknowledgements
This research is part of the Just Ecosystem Management project(NE/I003282/1) supported by the Ecosystem Services for PovertyAlleviation Program (ESPA) and the I-REDD+ project funded bythe European Union (Project no. 265286). The ESPA Program isfunded by the Department for International Development (DFID),the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Natu-ral Environment Research Council (NERC). Part of the fieldwork bythe first author was financed by the Ford Foundation Beijing. Wealso acknowledge Rong Lang and Huafang Chen’s support with theanalysis of land use change, Prof. Yongping Yang for his field coor-dination in China, and Sally Sutton’s assistance with copyediting.Above all, we are grateful to three anonymous reviewers, whoseequally constructive and challenging comments have contributedto this paper in an extraordinary manner.
References
Bennett, M.T., 2008. China’s sloping land conversion program: institutional innova-tion or business as usual? Ecol. Econ. 65 (4), 699–711.
Bennett, M.T., Mehta, A., Xu, J., 2011. Incomplete property rights: exposure to mar-kets and the provision of environmental services in China. China Econ. Rev. 22(4), 485–498.
Blackman, A., Woodward, R.T., 2010. User financing in a national payments forenvironmental services program: Costa Rican hydropower. Ecol. Econ. 69 (8),1626–1638.
Blaikie, P.M., Muldavin, J.S., 2004. Upstream, downstream, China, India: the politicsof environment in the Himalayan region. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 94 (3), 520–548.
Blaikie, P., Muldavin, J.S., 2014. Environmental justice? The story of two projects.Geoforum 54, 226–229.
Bosselmann, A.S., Lund, J.F., 2013. Do intermediary institutions promote inclusive-ness in PES programs? The case of Costa Rica. Geoforum 49, 50–60.
Chen, X., Lupi, F., He, G., Ouyang, Z., Liu, J., 2009. Factors affecting land reconversionplans following a payment for ecosystem service program. Biol. Conserv. 142(8), 1740–1747.
Corbera, E., Brown, K., Adger, W.N., 2007. The equity and legitimacy of markets forecosystem services. Dev. Change 38 (4), 587–613.
Di Gregorio, A., Jansen, L.J.M., 2000. Land Cover Classification System (LCCS): Clas-sification Concepts and User Manual. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S., 2008. Designing payment for environmental servicesin theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 65 (4), 663–674.
He, J., Zhou, Z., Weyerhaeuser, H., Xu, J., 2009. Participatory technology developmentfor incorporating non-timber forest products into forest restoration in Yunnan,Southwest China. For. Ecol. Manag. 257 (10), 2010–2016.
He, J., (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation) 2012. Decentralization of Forest Manage-ment in Yunnan Province, China. University of East Anglia.
He, J., Long, R., Xu, J., 2014. Local dynamics driving forest transition: insights fromupland villages in Southwest China. Forests 5 (2), 214–233.
He, J., 2014. Governing forest restoration: local case studies of sloping land conver-sion program in Southwest China. For. Policy Econ. 46, 30–38.
Ho, P., 2003. The wasteland auction policy in Northwest China: solving environmen-tal degradation and rural poverty? J. Peasant Stud. 30 (3-4), 121–159.
Hogarth, N.J., Belcher, B., Campbell, B., Stacey, N., 2012. The role of forest-relatedincome in household economies and rural livelihoods in the border-region ofSouthern China. World Dev. 43, 111–123.
Jiang, H., 2006. Decentralization, ecological construction, and the environment inpost-reform China: case study from Uxin Banner, Inner Mongolia. World Dev.34 (11), 1907–1921.
Kolinjivadi, V.K., Sunderland, T., 2012. A review of two payment schemes for water-shed services from China and Vietnam: the interface of government control andPES theory. Ecol. Soc. 17 (4), 10, http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05057-170410.
Landell-Mills, N., Porras, I., 2002. Silver Bullet or Fools’ Gold? A Global Review of
Markets for Forest Environmental Services and their Impact on the Poor. Instru-ments for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry Series. International Institute forEnvironment and Development, IIED, London.Li, W., 2004. Degradation and restoration of forest ecosystems in China. For. Ecol.Manag. 201 (1), 33–41.
2 e Poli
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
O
O
P
P
S
S
S
S
S
S
16 J. He, T. Sikor / Land Us
i, J., Feldman, M.W., Li, S., Gaily, G.C., 2011. Rural household income and inequalityunder the Sloping Land Conversion Program in western China. Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. U. S. A. 108 (19), 7721–7726.
i, Y., Wei, Y.H., 2010. The spatial-temporal hierarchy of regional inequality of China.Appl. Geogr. 30 (3), 303–316.
iu, J., Li, S., Ouyang, Z., Tam, C., Chen, X., 2008. Ecological and socioeconomic effectsof China’s policies for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105 (28),9477–9482.
a, H., Lu, Y., Xing, Y., He, G., Sun, Y., 2009. Rural households’ attitude and economicstrategies toward the conversion of cropland to forest and grassland program(CCFG): a case study in Qira, China. Environ. Manag. 43 (6), 1039–1047.
artin, A., Gross-Camp, N., Kebede, B., McGuire, S., Munyarukaza, J., 2014. Whoseenvironmental justice? Exploring local and global perspectives in a paymentsfor ecosystem services scheme in Rwanda. Geoforum 54, 167–177.
artinez-Alier, J., 2002. The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of EcologicalConflicts and Valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA.
cDermott, M., Mahanty, S., Schreckenberg, K., 2013. Examining equity: a multidi-mensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services.Environ. Sci. Policy 33, 416–427.
iles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. London, SAGE Publi-cations.
uradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., May, P.H., 2010. Reconciling theoryand practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding paymentsfor environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 69 (6), 1202–1208.
‘Brien, K., Li, L., 1999. Selective policy implementation in rural China. Comp. Polit.31 (2), 167–186.
i, J.C., Rozelle, S., 2000. Elections and power: the locus of decision-making in Chi-nese villages. China Q. 162, 513–539.
agiola, S., Arcenas, A., Platais, G., 2005. Can payments for environmental serviceshelp reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date fromLatin America. World Dev. 33 (2), 237–253.
ascual, U., Muradian, R., Rodríguez, L.C., Duraiappah, A., 2010. Exploring the linksbetween equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a con-ceptual approach. Ecol. Econ. 69 (6), 1237–1244.
chlosberg, D., 2007. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, andNature. Oxford University Press, New York.
chroeder, R., St Martin, K., Wilson, B., Sen, D., 2008. Third world environmentaljustice. Soc. Nat. Resour. 21 (7), 547–555.
FA (State Forestry Administration), 2002. Master Plan for the Sloping Land Conver-sion Program. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing.
hapiro-Garza, E., 2013. Contesting the market-based nature of Mexico’s nationalpayments for ecosystem services programs: four sites of articulation andhybridization. Geoforum 46, 5–15.
ikor, T. (Ed.), 2013. The Justices and Injustices of Ecosystem Services. Earthscan,London, UK.
ikor, T., Fisher, J., Few, R., Martin, A., Zeitoun, M., 2013. The justices and injusticesof ecosystem services. In: Sikor, T. (Ed.), The Justices and Injustices of EcosystemServices. Earthscan, London, pp. 187–200.
cy 43 (2015) 207–216
Sikor, T., Martin, A., Fisher, J., He, J., 2014. Towards an empirical analysis of justicein ecosystem governance. Conserv. Lett., http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12142.
State Council, 2002. Improving implementation of the Sloping Land ConservationProgram. Policy Document by State Council.
State Council, 2007. Improving the Sloping Land Conservation Program. Policy Doc-ument by State Council.
Sturgeon, J.C., 2009. Quality control: resource access and local village elections inrural China. Mod. Asian Stud. 43 (2), 481–509.
Uchida, E., Xu, J., Xu, Z., Rozelle, S., 2007. Are the poor benefiting from China’s landconservation program? Environ. Dev. Econ. 12 (4), 593–620.
Uthes, S., Fen, L., Lin, Z., Xiaochang, C., 2010. Payments for grassland ecosystemservices: a comparison of two examples in China and Germany. J. Resour. Ecol.1 (4), 319–330.
van Noordwijk, M., Leimona, B., 2010. Principles for fairness and efficiency inenhancing environmental services in Asia: payments, compensation, or co-investment? Ecol. Soc. 15 (4), 17.
Vatn, A., 2010. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services.Ecol. Econ. 69 (6), 1245–1252.
Walker, G., 2011. Environmental Justice: Concepts, Evidence, and Politics. Routledge,London.
Weyerhaeuser, H., Wilkes, A., Khral, F., 2005. Local impacts and responses to regionalforest conservation and rehabilitation programs in China’s northwest Yunnanprovince. Agric. Syst. 85 (3), 234–253.
Whiteman, G., 2009. All my relations: understanding perceptions of justice and con-flict between companies and indigenous peoples. Organ. Stud. 30 (1), 101–120.
Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts, Occa-sional Paper No. 42. CIFOR, Bogor.
Wunder, S., 2013. When payments for environmental services will work for conser-vation. Conserv. Lett. 6 (4), 230–237.
Xu, J., Ribot, J., 2004. Decentralisation and accountability in forest management: acase from Yunnan, Southwest China. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 16 (1), 153–173.
Xu, Z., Bennett, M.T., Tao, R., Xu, J., 2004. China’s Sloping Land Conversion Pro-gramme four years on: current situation, pending issues. Int. For. Rev. 6 (3–4),317–326.
Xu, J.C., Ai, X., Deng, X., 2005. Exploring the spatial and temporal dynamics of landuse in Xizhuang watershed of Yunnan, southwest China. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs.Geoinf. 7 (4), 299–309.
Xu, J., Yin, R., Li, Z., Liu, C., 2006. China’s ecological rehabilitation: unprece-dented efforts, dramatic impacts, and requisite policies. Ecol. Econ. 57 (4),595–607.
Yeh, E.T., 2009. Greening western China: a critical view. Geoforum 40 (5),884–894.
Yin, R., Yin, G., 2010. China’s primary programs of terrestrial ecosystem restora-
tion: initiation, implementation, and challenges. Environ. Manag. 45 (3),429–441.Zeitoun, M., McLaughlin, K., 2013. Justice: using social justice to address gaps in riverbasin management. In: Sikor, T. (Ed.), The Justices and Injustices of EcosystemServices. Earthscan, London.
